Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand and Kashmir
Dost Mittar October 9, 2003
#108 Posted by Sanatani on December 19, 2005 11:29:44 pm
Mr Urs not so truly,
it is not India exploiting Kashmir but Kashmir Exploiting India. Please read these two articles. Frankly I would give the valley to Pak as these Cashew B*&^##s only understand 1 language the ``BOOT OF THE PANJABI MUSSALMAN AND THE PATHAN``
Rajeev Srinivasan
The perfect con job: the Kashmiri loot of the nation
It was a little statement that got me thinking: Muzamil Jameel of the New Indian Express reporting on October 24, 2002 about the horse-trading between the Congress and the People`s Democratic Party regarding the formation of a government in Jammu and Kashmir. He said, regarding the PDP`s insistence that its leader, Mufti Mohammed Sayeed, must be made the chief minister:
...The strategy had its risks. Observed a PDP leader, `But if Mufti Sahib leads the coalition, we will be in the driver`s seat. We can resign and recommend dissolution of the Assembly at our will and on an issue of choice.`
This startled me. How casually this PDP `leader` talks about a mid-term election! The fact that it cost the Indian exchequer millions of rupees in security, the fact that a large number of soldiers were killed in Islamist terrorist violence in the run-up to elections, the fact that a number of Kashmiri civilians were killed, also by Islamist terrorists, none of this seems to matter! For narrow political gain, they are willing to topple any government and call for fresh elections! The rest of us are breathing a sigh of relief that these elections were `free and fair`, and these people are already thinking of mid-term polls.
Who are these people? Are we living on the same planet? Do they view it as their imperial right that Indians will die and Indians will spend large amounts of money for their silly little political games?
Reading further, there were other revelations:
PDP`s charismatic crowd-puller Mehbooba Sayeed is taking her chances and has begun making daily trips to her party`s South Kashmir bastion... Her father, Mufti Sayeed appealed to `boys with guns in the mountains,` telling them there was no longer any need for violence because `now your representatives are in the assembly. Whether in government or outside, we will put forward your voice.`
And more:
Its [the PDP`s] manifesto is a clever rewrite of the Hurriyat agenda.
In other words, the PDP is the voice of the separatists, the agents of the hard-eyed `boys` (I love this appellation - so cuddly!) who terrorized and ethnically cleansed the entire Hindu population of the Kashmir valley. They are akin to the Islamist hardliners who wreak havoc all over the world: in Bali, in Afghanistan, in Moscow. And here we have powerful politicians, who boldly declare themselves to be their representatives! Isn`t there something that borders on sedition in all this? Can the people of India trust Mufti Sayeed to look after their interests, or is he likely to advance General Musharraf`s interests?
The entire English-language media in India has been celebrating the overthrow of the Abdullah dynasty. Yes, maybe they were corrupt, maybe they were feudalistic, maybe they represented a minority opinion. Yet, we do seem to have a choice between Scylla and Charybdis here: is it a wee bit too early to break out the champagne?
Not that I am a big fan of the National Conference, but I wouldn`t write their obituary yet. Electorates have been known to change their minds. For instance, look at the 1999 Lok Sabha elections: the National Conference won all four Lok Sabha seats in the Vale of Kashmir and Ladakh, and the BJP won in Jammu and Udhampur. Defeating famous names, too. Mufti Mohammed Sayeed lost in Anantnag, Saifuddin Soz in Baramulla; Omar Abdullah retained Srinagar by defeating Mehbooba Mufti. It is possible that the Kashmiris calculated that having somebody in the ruling NDA front would improve their chances of looting the central treasury, in which they were proved correct.
Now we`ll have to wait and see how the Centre plays things out with the new Congress-PDP J&K government. If I were the NDA, I`d say, `Hey, you made your bed, now lie in it. We will give to J&K whatever it raises in tax revenues. If you want more, ask the Congress to go find sources of funds elsewhere.` This would be entirely fair in my opinion: after all, most states get less than what they generate. Maybe it is Chanakyan logic on the part of BJP to wash its hands of the J&K matter and leave it to the Congress to sink or swim. Alas, even as I say it, I doubt it.
Frankly, the new rulers of J&K worry me. Mehbooba Mufti declared, as early as April 2002, her intent to disband the SOG (Special Operations Group), the counter-terrorism forces that have to some extent succeeded in infiltrating the terrorist groups. In other words, the Muftis want to hang out a big sign on the border: `Welcome, Al Qaeda, Taliban, and other assorted Islamist terrorists. You have a safe haven in Jammu & Kashmir. See, we the government of the state will prevent any harm from coming to you.` I don`t think they will wait for a second invitation. What can we expect? More hostage situations. More ransom. More terrorism, spreading to other parts of India.
The history of hostage situations in J&K is illuminating, and it is definitely worth considering how closely politicians may be involved.
On December 8, 1989, a group of terrorists kidnapped one Rubaiya Sayeed and demanded the release of several jailed terrorists as the ransom for releasing her. According to observers in the know (see Manoj Joshi, The Lost Rebellion: Kashmir in the Nineties), this gang was on the point of releasing her unconditionally when the central government capitulated, much to their surprise and delight. The result was a spate of copycat abductions and consequent releases of jailed terrorists. This, of course, reached its apogee years later with the craven release of arch-terrorists Masood Azhar and Omar Sheikh after the Kandahar hijacking.
If only the government at the Centre - any government at the Centre - had the guts to stand up to terror like the Russians did recently with Chechen terrorists. If only! The key is: provide deterrents. Chechens will think twice now about another big hostage situation, as the Russians have shown they will use any means at their disposal.
The Rubaiya Sayeed kidnapping was a watershed event that indicated to terrorists that they could toy with the Indian government. The much-maligned Farooq Abdullah said at the time, prophetically, that this meant the floodgates had been opened, and he was right.
Who were the dramatis personae? Rubaiya`s father Mufti Mohammed Sayeed, then home minister at the Centre; V P Singh, prime minister; Arif Mohammad Khan; Inder Kumar Gujral; Arun Nehru, ministers and advisors to the PM. All famously `secular` and `progressive` people. And what did they trigger off? A dozen years of mayhem. 30,000 people killed, including thousands of soldiers. Ethnic cleansing of Hindus. Religious extremism among Muslims. Massacres of Hindu pilgrims. Very farsighted indeed.
Now it may strike the usual impartial -- and slightly skeptical -- Martian that it is a little strange that the selfsame Sayeed, newly anointed as chief minister of J&K, now proclaims that he is the voice of the same terrorists, the famous `boys with guns.` He confirmed that he would disband the Special Operations Group, and rescind POTA in the state. The army said this would be a setback to security operations in the state. This is an understatement.
Sayeed wants to spend (the central government`s) money to rehabilitate the `innocent families of militants,` on the grounds that they have done nothing wrong. In fact, they have: they should have discouraged said `boys` from taking up terrorism, so it is their fault. Look at it from the point of view of the terrorist: he kills `infidels,` and is killed by the security forces. He thinks he will go to heaven, to enjoy the promised 72 virgins. And lo and behold, his family gets taken care of by the state. So what is the disincentive for him? It`s a win-win situation. In comparison, Israelis have consistently taken the stand that the families of terrorists will be punished, their houses bulldozed: it turns out that the prospect of his mother starving on the streets is a significant disincentive for even the most committed terrorist, heaven and virgins notwithstanding.
And oh, by the way, Sayeed says the ethnically cleansed Pandits are welcome to come back to J&K, as a politically correct afterthought. For what? To face the `boys` who already refer to Anantnag as Islamabad, and the Kishenganga river as the Neelum river, to avoid polluting themselves with anything Hindu? And I suppose the Muslims who happily took over Hindu properties will simply hand them back and welcome the Pandits with open arms.
Wait, there is more. On September 22, 1991, Ghulam Nabi Azad`s brother-in-law Tassaduq Dev was kidnapped by terrorists. Result? Several jailed terrorists were released. Azad was then minister for parliamentary affairs at the Centre. And he is the Congress` CM-in-waiting, who will get the chair after three years of Sayeed`s rule. So kidnapping and ransom giving is another thing Sayeed and Azad have in common.
And then there is Saifuddin Soz. This Congress MP was formerly of the NC and the NDA, famous for his vote that brought down the BJP government in 1999 by a single vote. Soz quit the NC and joined the Congress. His daughter Nahida Soz was kidnapped back in August 1991, and, once again, the litany continues: she was released in exchange for jailed terrorists.
Doesn`t all this sound a little suspicious? Would the increasingly skeptical Martian wonder if there were something more than meets the eye here? Why didn`t even one of these politicians suggest that the government stand firm and not cave in to terror tactics? Is it possible that there is some little understanding between the terrorists and the politicians? After all, look at what they have achieved between themselves:
The Vale of Kashmir has been completely cleansed of all non-Muslims.
Many captured terrorists have been released (and in all likelihood, ransom money has been paid).
The Vale of Kashmir continues to stress its differences from the rest of India in all sorts of ways: its `prime minister,` its six-year assembly, etc.
The Vale of Kashmir continues its oppression of Ladakh and Jammu, which are much more interested in full integration into India.
The Government of India has been completely emasculated in J&K: it is reduced to being supplicants to such opportunists as the Hurriyat Conference.
Muslim Kashmiris continue to be portrayed as victims, a powerful lightning rod for Islamist causes worldwide.
Tremendous loot has come to J&K in the form of subsidies and grants from a Centre held ransom by threats of secession.
`Kashmiriyat,` allegedly once a pluralistic concept, has now been redefined as a purely Muslim concept.
Kashmiris enjoy a convenient situation, where they gain all the benefits of being part of India, and at the same time maintain a separate identify.
In effect, Sunni Muslim Kashmiris have colonized India - see the second part of this column for details.
All in all, a very good deal for Muslim Kashmiris, both politicians and terrorists. So why on earth do we all think they will abandon this wildly successful policy now, just because an election has been held? Nor will they stop whining about how badly they are treated, which seems to get the `secular progressive` media in India all teary eyed, whereas said media does not care one whit about how the ethnically cleansed Pandits are dying out, their numbers dwindling from disease and hopelessness, in squalid refugee camps.
I read a particular good whinge by a Muslim Kashmiri with the BBC`s Urdu service. His great sob story: as a youngster, he was taking a lunchbox to someone in Srinagar, and soldiers stopped him at two checkpoints. The first soldier opened the box and poked around in the rice to ensure that it contained no explosives. He then wrote on our correspondent`s palm in Hindi that he had been checked and could be allowed to proceed.
However, the second soldier who stopped him was a South Indian who could not understand the Hindi words written on our hero`s palm, so the second soldier also rifled through the rice. Much to the disgust of our disdainful BBC man. These uncouth soldiers: sigh, we highly civilized Kashmiris have to put up with so much! The indignity of it all - especially having to deal with those inferior South Indians!
There is an entirely different perspective at which you can look at this tale of woe designed to evoke sympathy. Here are Indian soldiers of all types: hill-people like Gurkhas, plains Hindi-speakers, coastal Southerners, et al, living - and more to the point, dying - for these ungrateful wretches of Kashmir. There are plenty of improvised explosive devices used in Kashmir, and it was not at all unreasonable for the soldiers to ensure that the lunchbox wasn`t one.
The soldiers are quite aware of terrorists in many guises: teenagers, burqa-clad ones, etc. And these poor grunts, who live in hostile territory with constant and justified fear of death, have every right to inspect and interrogate anybody. The Kashmiris are in fact the aggressors, the ones aiding and abetting foreign and local terrorists. Our whining hero should be thankful the soldiers didn`t send him on his way assisted by an AK-47. Not to mention the fact that his sob story is very likely exaggerated: everybody in the army, from North or South, knows Hindi.
But our hero is doing what comes naturally. Muslim Kashmiris have made a career out of portraying themselves as victims, thereby shaking down the Indian State. This whole thing is one of the most successful con jobs in history, foisted on an unsuspecting country
Part II
The point we have all missed is the virtual colonization of India by Muslim Kashmiris. I have been reading statistical information about the rate of poverty in different states in India. Gentle reader, take this test: what do you think the rate of poverty in Kashmir is? Below the average, above the average in India? 10 per cent? 20 per cent? 30 per cent?
The astonishing fact is that, despite all the wailing and the beating of breasts, J&K is the least poor state in the country, with a rate of poverty of about 3.4 per cent, compared to 26 per cent for the country as a whole! And no prizes for guessing how it got that way: a hint, it is not because they earn lots of foreign exchange from tourism, dried fruits and nuts, and pashmina shawls.
In effect, Kashmir is extracting royal tribute from the rest of India. Strangely reminiscent of what the British did during colonial times. That is, there is massive funds flow from the Centre to J&K. Look at the magnitude of that largesse: Fiscal Year Amount (Rs, in Crores)
1991 1,244
1992 1,393
1993 1,569
1994 1,820
1995 2,635
1996 2,627
1997 3,208
1998 3,624
1999 3,833
2000 4,604
2001 4,437
2002 4,578
CAGR 1991-2002 14%
Source: India Today, October 14, 2002. `Great Sop Story,` V Shankar Aiyar. For further information, see www.cifjkindia.com, www.kashmir-information.com, www.kashmiri-pandit.org
The Union government`s aid to J&K has therefore far outstripped the growth in the GDP, which has averaged roughly 5% in this time frame. What does this mean? J&K gets a larger and larger share of central expenditure on states. In fact, it gets 10 percent of all central assistance and J&K has received more than any other state since 1995! Far out of proportion to its fair share, which by population should be about 1 percent: that is, J&K gets roughly ten times what it deserves.
Reminds me of the story of the koel and the crow: how the koel lays its eggs in a crow`s nest, and the loud, demanding, hungry koel chick deceives the foster-parents. In the end, the crow`s chicks are starved or elbowed out of the nest, and the interloper flies off, fully grown at someone else`s expense. That is exactly what the good folks in J&K seem to want: fatten at the trough of Indian taxpayer expense, and then secede or join Pakistan.
To put it another way, the per capita central assistance is Rs 8,092 per man, woman and child in J&K. Kindly compare this to the per capita GDP in India, roughly $460 or Rs 22,000. Therefore, each man, woman and child in J&K is being subsidized to the tune of 36 per cent of the per capita GDP! Each J&K person gets eight to ten times more money from the Centre than citizens from other states. This is a true rip-off. And all this money is given by the Center to the state directly, to use as it pleases. Per capita assistance 1992-1993 Per capita assistance 2000-01 CAGR
Other states 576 1,137 8.8%
J & K 3,197 8,092 12.3%
By the way, this largesse does not include major projects that have been funded by the Centre to the tune of Rs 25,000 crores. Consider the following:
Projects Cost Rs, in crores
Railways 4,496
Jammu-Udhampur 446
Udampur-Srinagar-Baramulla 3,564
Jammu Tawi-Jalandar 486
Roads 1,700
NH 1A 1200
Batote-Kishwar-Singhan Pass 200
Leh via Manali Road 1,300
Public Works 318
Reconstruction of gutted bridges 224
Planning Commission Projects 30
Schools 65
Power 16,000
Salai Power Project 921
Dulhasti Hydro Project 4,279
Uri Project 3,300
Tourism 115
Dal Lake cleanup 100
Tourist facility projects 19
Leh Convention Center 2
All this is in addition to the enormous amounts of money to keep Islamist barbarians from overrunning the place. This amounts to thousands of crores of rupees a year, much of which ends up being spent in Jammu and Kashmir. No wonder that the population there, despite years of militancy, and the hollowing out of the tourism industry, is still remarkably better off than most of India`s population.
So the next time some `secular` `progressive` asks you why there is abject poverty in India, the answer is: `Because we spend all our money on keeping Jammu & Kashmir well-fed and well-protected.` Of course, the `secular` `progressive` will then ask the question, `Why don`t we just give up J&K to Pakistan?` The answer is, `If we do, very soon we`ll be repeating the very same conversation about West Bengal, and Uttar Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu, and Kerala: because the Islamist terrorists are not looking for J&K alone, they want nothing less than the complete conquest of India.`
In case you think I am kidding, here`s an excerpt from an interview with Nawabzada Nabiullah Khan of the Jamaat-I-Islami of Pakistan, published in the February 1999 issue of the Jamhooria Islamia, a Baluchi magazine. Khan is quoting the views of Qazi Hussain Ahmed, head of the JI, which has captured a large number of seats in the Pakistani `elections` held recently. The entire interview, as a window into the mindset of an Islamist, is most instructive. And shows a remarkable world view.
What kind of government that JI envisages for Pakistan?
It will be the Sharia government. Sharia will be made our constitution so that the eminent Muslim scholars who had completed the schooling in madrassas will be appointed as the judges in every court. Qazi wanted to make the presidium on the same model as the Khalifa. Presently our ideas is that the entire top leadership of JI as well as all three military generals will be part of the presidium for which the Qazi will be the Kalifa.
We are keenly watching the progress of Taliban and learning from it. We are impressed with the Taliban on the women issue, minorities issue and law and order issue. Mullah Omar is a great friend of Qazi. Omar had visited his house many times. In the tentative talks, we had decided to form union of Pakistan and Afghanistan once the right conditions are set in Pakistan (ie the JI government in Pakistan). Our motto is Constant Jihad.
The idea is to keep Pakistan in a constant state of Jihad all the time. Qazi`s vision is that Pakistan will be centre of the new Islamic empire that stretches from Burma to Afghanistan and from Sri Lanka to Tajikistan including Kashmir. Towards that end, Jamaat will use all tactics from terrorism in the kafir- controlled areas to negotiations in the Muslim-controlled areas. Already the Jamaat leaders of Bangladesh and Jamaat leaders of India had accepted the primacy of Pakistani leadership in this regard.
The problem is that India has internalized a fear of this creeping Islamization, as well as the woolly-headed `secular` `progressive` idea that somehow India owes Kashmiris something. On the contrary, Kashmiris have generally pulled the wool over India`s eyes, to the extent that India is now a Kashmiri colony.
How have the Kashmiris colonized India? Consider the following:
Massive amounts of money are channeled from the Indian government to J&K.
Kashmiris are free to reside anywhere in India, to own property, to carry own business.
Unwanted Kashmiris (namely Hindus) are dumped on India.
Kashmiris often are in senior positions in the Indian government, for instance the Nehru dynasty and even honorary Kashmiris like Sonia Antonia Maino Gandhi get to perpetuate their rule. Not to forget that Mufti Sayeed was once home minister of India.
India sends its soldiers and spends massive amounts to fight the Kashmiris` wars.
Now all this sounds pretty much like what the British had going on in India, doesn`t it? Consider what the British imperialists did:
Massive amounts of money were channeled from Indian to Britain.
Britons were free to reside anywhere in India, to own property, to carry on business.
Unwanted Britons (usually second sons of the inbred minor aristocracy, or uppity grammar-school boys) were dumped on India.
Britons held all the senior positions in Indian government.
India sent its soldiers and spent massive amounts to fight Britain`s wars
Maybe the analogy is a little stretched, but it is startling to see how one-sided and imperial the relationship between Kashmir and the Indian State is.
Let us contrast this with the fact that in Pakistani-occupied Kashmir, the percentage of Kashmiris has dwindled, as it has become a Punjabi Sunni colony, much like China`s policy of demographically swamping Tibet with Han Chinese immigrants. According to Yogendra Bali writing in The Tribune on June 11, 2002, more than two-thirds of the population of PoK is now non-Kashmiri. Of course Hindu Kashmiris have been completely eliminated from PoK. By every measure, be it literacy rates, per capita income or poverty rates, PoK is far worse off than J&K.
Furthermore, the Northern Areas (Gilgit, Baltistan, etc), which collectively refer to themselves as Balawaristan, are areas explicitly ruled as colonies by the Sunni Punjabis. They do not even have the fig leaf of a legislature; I have read a number of statements by Balawaris where they express their total disillusionment with the `Land of the Pure,` which does not give them basic rights, despite court orders. In fact Balawaris have indicated their desire to unite with Ladakh, considering they are just over the Line of Control.
No wonder, then, that the residents even of the raucously anti-India Vale of Kashmir still want to keep themselves attached to the indulgent mammaries of the Indian State. They have no wish, mixing metaphors wildly, to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Consider the poll conducted by MORI, a British pollster.
61 per cent of those polled across J&K felt that they would be better off as Indian citizens, 6 per cent as Pakistani citizens, and 33 per cent did not know.
67 per cent felt that Pakistan`s involvement in the last ten years had been bad for the region, 15 thought it was good, and 18 per cent thought it made no difference.
65 per cent felt that the presence of foreign terrorists in J&K was damaging to the Kashmir cause, the rest thought it was neither damaging nor helpful. (Really! 35 per cent!).
How to bring about peace:
Economic development of the region to provide more job opportunities and reduction of poverty - 93 per cent.
The holding of free and fair elections to elect the people`s representatives - 86 per cent.
Direct consultation between the Indian government and the people of Kashmir - 87 per cent.
An end to militant violence in the region - 86 per cent.
Stopping the infiltration of militants across the Line of Control - 88 per cent.
Human rights violations by militant groups in Jammu and Kashmir:
96 per cent in Jammu believe these are widespread.
2 per cent in Srinagar believe these are widespread (33 per cent believe they are `occasional`).
The role and impact of the Indian security forces:
10 per cent in Jammu believe scaling down their operations would help.
90 per cent in Srinagar and Leh want to scale down operations.
80 per cent believe that allowing the displaced Kashmiri Pandits to return in safety would help the cause of peace
A pretty clear pattern emerges: the Muslims in the Vale of Kashmir want India to continue to give them money, but want the `militants` (aka terrorists) to be given a free hand. Why not, indeed: it is a terrific deal for them; they have used the Pakistan-armed terrorists to cleanse the Hindus. Regarding their pious desire for the return of the Pandits, I wonder what percentage of those wanting them to return are willing to give back the real estate and the jobs the Pandits left behind when fleeing.
And of course, like Oliver Twist, the Kashmiris want more. Money, investment, all that.
I think there has to be an end to this free ride. With the new PDP-Congress coalition government in power in J&K, there is a golden opportunity to rethink this unequal situation. For, the election has been patently free and fair, in the face of tremendous odds. Here are a few points as food for thought:
1.The Indian State has been practising a policy of unthinking giveaways to Jammu and Kashmir, danam in the Chanakyan chatur-upayas. It may well be time to move on dandam, a kick in the pants, so they realize that with rights, they have some responsibilities too.
2.The ongoing domination of Ladakh and Jammu by the Vale of Kashmir needs to be ameliorated. It is well known that Ladakh and Jammu have no use for the secessionist tendencies of the Kashmiris; however, the Kashmiris of Srinagar have been running the whole state as their personal fief. The state needs to be reorganized in some way (not necessarily trifurcation) so that the legitimate needs of those in Ladakh and Jammu get a hearing.
3.The minority Hindus of Jammu and Buddhists of Ladakh need to take a leaf out of the books of the Muslims and Christians of Kerala. In Kerala, the religious minorities have become kingmakers by exploiting the fact that, in fractured polities, smaller parties hold the balance when it comes to forming governments: thus everyone wants them and offers them many incentives.
4>Instead of mollycoddling those who claim they want to secede from the Indian Union, the central government should ask them to choose: if they want the benefit of integration with India, they need to go for it full force. The Centre should start negotiating the repeal of Article 370, rather than talking about pre-1953 status or other such nonsense.
5.Kashmiris now enjoy full rights of residency anywhere in India: since there is no reciprocity, there need to be some adjustments. One possibility is to progressively revoke Kashmiris` right to reside elsewhere or buy property. In addition, Kashmiris residing anywhere in India should be under very strong scrutiny to ensure that they are not, and are not harboring, terrorists.
6.Move towards reducing the quantum of central investment in Kashmir. Today, the state generates only 40 per cent of its budget, and the rest is through central grants.
7.If the Kashmiris want a reduction in Indian security forces in their territory, let us grant them their wish. The Centre should start making plans to do the following: mine the border heavily, but gradually withdraw soldiers from the Vale of Kashmir. Of course, this will encourage the Al Qaeda and assorted Pakistani, Arab and Afghan mercenaries to enter the Vale of Kashmir and rape, kidnap, loot etc. Once they get a taste of this medicine from these beloved `boys in the mountains` I bet the Kashmiris will come crawling back, asking for more soldiers. In fact, the mere threat of withdrawing troops will make them think twice.
it is not India exploiting Kashmir but Kashmir Exploiting India. Please read these two articles. Frankly I would give the valley to Pak as these Cashew B*&^##s only understand 1 language the ``BOOT OF THE PANJABI MUSSALMAN AND THE PATHAN``
Rajeev Srinivasan
The perfect con job: the Kashmiri loot of the nation
It was a little statement that got me thinking: Muzamil Jameel of the New Indian Express reporting on October 24, 2002 about the horse-trading between the Congress and the People`s Democratic Party regarding the formation of a government in Jammu and Kashmir. He said, regarding the PDP`s insistence that its leader, Mufti Mohammed Sayeed, must be made the chief minister:
...The strategy had its risks. Observed a PDP leader, `But if Mufti Sahib leads the coalition, we will be in the driver`s seat. We can resign and recommend dissolution of the Assembly at our will and on an issue of choice.`
This startled me. How casually this PDP `leader` talks about a mid-term election! The fact that it cost the Indian exchequer millions of rupees in security, the fact that a large number of soldiers were killed in Islamist terrorist violence in the run-up to elections, the fact that a number of Kashmiri civilians were killed, also by Islamist terrorists, none of this seems to matter! For narrow political gain, they are willing to topple any government and call for fresh elections! The rest of us are breathing a sigh of relief that these elections were `free and fair`, and these people are already thinking of mid-term polls.
Who are these people? Are we living on the same planet? Do they view it as their imperial right that Indians will die and Indians will spend large amounts of money for their silly little political games?
Reading further, there were other revelations:
PDP`s charismatic crowd-puller Mehbooba Sayeed is taking her chances and has begun making daily trips to her party`s South Kashmir bastion... Her father, Mufti Sayeed appealed to `boys with guns in the mountains,` telling them there was no longer any need for violence because `now your representatives are in the assembly. Whether in government or outside, we will put forward your voice.`
And more:
Its [the PDP`s] manifesto is a clever rewrite of the Hurriyat agenda.
In other words, the PDP is the voice of the separatists, the agents of the hard-eyed `boys` (I love this appellation - so cuddly!) who terrorized and ethnically cleansed the entire Hindu population of the Kashmir valley. They are akin to the Islamist hardliners who wreak havoc all over the world: in Bali, in Afghanistan, in Moscow. And here we have powerful politicians, who boldly declare themselves to be their representatives! Isn`t there something that borders on sedition in all this? Can the people of India trust Mufti Sayeed to look after their interests, or is he likely to advance General Musharraf`s interests?
The entire English-language media in India has been celebrating the overthrow of the Abdullah dynasty. Yes, maybe they were corrupt, maybe they were feudalistic, maybe they represented a minority opinion. Yet, we do seem to have a choice between Scylla and Charybdis here: is it a wee bit too early to break out the champagne?
Not that I am a big fan of the National Conference, but I wouldn`t write their obituary yet. Electorates have been known to change their minds. For instance, look at the 1999 Lok Sabha elections: the National Conference won all four Lok Sabha seats in the Vale of Kashmir and Ladakh, and the BJP won in Jammu and Udhampur. Defeating famous names, too. Mufti Mohammed Sayeed lost in Anantnag, Saifuddin Soz in Baramulla; Omar Abdullah retained Srinagar by defeating Mehbooba Mufti. It is possible that the Kashmiris calculated that having somebody in the ruling NDA front would improve their chances of looting the central treasury, in which they were proved correct.
Now we`ll have to wait and see how the Centre plays things out with the new Congress-PDP J&K government. If I were the NDA, I`d say, `Hey, you made your bed, now lie in it. We will give to J&K whatever it raises in tax revenues. If you want more, ask the Congress to go find sources of funds elsewhere.` This would be entirely fair in my opinion: after all, most states get less than what they generate. Maybe it is Chanakyan logic on the part of BJP to wash its hands of the J&K matter and leave it to the Congress to sink or swim. Alas, even as I say it, I doubt it.
Frankly, the new rulers of J&K worry me. Mehbooba Mufti declared, as early as April 2002, her intent to disband the SOG (Special Operations Group), the counter-terrorism forces that have to some extent succeeded in infiltrating the terrorist groups. In other words, the Muftis want to hang out a big sign on the border: `Welcome, Al Qaeda, Taliban, and other assorted Islamist terrorists. You have a safe haven in Jammu & Kashmir. See, we the government of the state will prevent any harm from coming to you.` I don`t think they will wait for a second invitation. What can we expect? More hostage situations. More ransom. More terrorism, spreading to other parts of India.
The history of hostage situations in J&K is illuminating, and it is definitely worth considering how closely politicians may be involved.
On December 8, 1989, a group of terrorists kidnapped one Rubaiya Sayeed and demanded the release of several jailed terrorists as the ransom for releasing her. According to observers in the know (see Manoj Joshi, The Lost Rebellion: Kashmir in the Nineties), this gang was on the point of releasing her unconditionally when the central government capitulated, much to their surprise and delight. The result was a spate of copycat abductions and consequent releases of jailed terrorists. This, of course, reached its apogee years later with the craven release of arch-terrorists Masood Azhar and Omar Sheikh after the Kandahar hijacking.
If only the government at the Centre - any government at the Centre - had the guts to stand up to terror like the Russians did recently with Chechen terrorists. If only! The key is: provide deterrents. Chechens will think twice now about another big hostage situation, as the Russians have shown they will use any means at their disposal.
The Rubaiya Sayeed kidnapping was a watershed event that indicated to terrorists that they could toy with the Indian government. The much-maligned Farooq Abdullah said at the time, prophetically, that this meant the floodgates had been opened, and he was right.
Who were the dramatis personae? Rubaiya`s father Mufti Mohammed Sayeed, then home minister at the Centre; V P Singh, prime minister; Arif Mohammad Khan; Inder Kumar Gujral; Arun Nehru, ministers and advisors to the PM. All famously `secular` and `progressive` people. And what did they trigger off? A dozen years of mayhem. 30,000 people killed, including thousands of soldiers. Ethnic cleansing of Hindus. Religious extremism among Muslims. Massacres of Hindu pilgrims. Very farsighted indeed.
Now it may strike the usual impartial -- and slightly skeptical -- Martian that it is a little strange that the selfsame Sayeed, newly anointed as chief minister of J&K, now proclaims that he is the voice of the same terrorists, the famous `boys with guns.` He confirmed that he would disband the Special Operations Group, and rescind POTA in the state. The army said this would be a setback to security operations in the state. This is an understatement.
Sayeed wants to spend (the central government`s) money to rehabilitate the `innocent families of militants,` on the grounds that they have done nothing wrong. In fact, they have: they should have discouraged said `boys` from taking up terrorism, so it is their fault. Look at it from the point of view of the terrorist: he kills `infidels,` and is killed by the security forces. He thinks he will go to heaven, to enjoy the promised 72 virgins. And lo and behold, his family gets taken care of by the state. So what is the disincentive for him? It`s a win-win situation. In comparison, Israelis have consistently taken the stand that the families of terrorists will be punished, their houses bulldozed: it turns out that the prospect of his mother starving on the streets is a significant disincentive for even the most committed terrorist, heaven and virgins notwithstanding.
And oh, by the way, Sayeed says the ethnically cleansed Pandits are welcome to come back to J&K, as a politically correct afterthought. For what? To face the `boys` who already refer to Anantnag as Islamabad, and the Kishenganga river as the Neelum river, to avoid polluting themselves with anything Hindu? And I suppose the Muslims who happily took over Hindu properties will simply hand them back and welcome the Pandits with open arms.
Wait, there is more. On September 22, 1991, Ghulam Nabi Azad`s brother-in-law Tassaduq Dev was kidnapped by terrorists. Result? Several jailed terrorists were released. Azad was then minister for parliamentary affairs at the Centre. And he is the Congress` CM-in-waiting, who will get the chair after three years of Sayeed`s rule. So kidnapping and ransom giving is another thing Sayeed and Azad have in common.
And then there is Saifuddin Soz. This Congress MP was formerly of the NC and the NDA, famous for his vote that brought down the BJP government in 1999 by a single vote. Soz quit the NC and joined the Congress. His daughter Nahida Soz was kidnapped back in August 1991, and, once again, the litany continues: she was released in exchange for jailed terrorists.
Doesn`t all this sound a little suspicious? Would the increasingly skeptical Martian wonder if there were something more than meets the eye here? Why didn`t even one of these politicians suggest that the government stand firm and not cave in to terror tactics? Is it possible that there is some little understanding between the terrorists and the politicians? After all, look at what they have achieved between themselves:
The Vale of Kashmir has been completely cleansed of all non-Muslims.
Many captured terrorists have been released (and in all likelihood, ransom money has been paid).
The Vale of Kashmir continues to stress its differences from the rest of India in all sorts of ways: its `prime minister,` its six-year assembly, etc.
The Vale of Kashmir continues its oppression of Ladakh and Jammu, which are much more interested in full integration into India.
The Government of India has been completely emasculated in J&K: it is reduced to being supplicants to such opportunists as the Hurriyat Conference.
Muslim Kashmiris continue to be portrayed as victims, a powerful lightning rod for Islamist causes worldwide.
Tremendous loot has come to J&K in the form of subsidies and grants from a Centre held ransom by threats of secession.
`Kashmiriyat,` allegedly once a pluralistic concept, has now been redefined as a purely Muslim concept.
Kashmiris enjoy a convenient situation, where they gain all the benefits of being part of India, and at the same time maintain a separate identify.
In effect, Sunni Muslim Kashmiris have colonized India - see the second part of this column for details.
All in all, a very good deal for Muslim Kashmiris, both politicians and terrorists. So why on earth do we all think they will abandon this wildly successful policy now, just because an election has been held? Nor will they stop whining about how badly they are treated, which seems to get the `secular progressive` media in India all teary eyed, whereas said media does not care one whit about how the ethnically cleansed Pandits are dying out, their numbers dwindling from disease and hopelessness, in squalid refugee camps.
I read a particular good whinge by a Muslim Kashmiri with the BBC`s Urdu service. His great sob story: as a youngster, he was taking a lunchbox to someone in Srinagar, and soldiers stopped him at two checkpoints. The first soldier opened the box and poked around in the rice to ensure that it contained no explosives. He then wrote on our correspondent`s palm in Hindi that he had been checked and could be allowed to proceed.
However, the second soldier who stopped him was a South Indian who could not understand the Hindi words written on our hero`s palm, so the second soldier also rifled through the rice. Much to the disgust of our disdainful BBC man. These uncouth soldiers: sigh, we highly civilized Kashmiris have to put up with so much! The indignity of it all - especially having to deal with those inferior South Indians!
There is an entirely different perspective at which you can look at this tale of woe designed to evoke sympathy. Here are Indian soldiers of all types: hill-people like Gurkhas, plains Hindi-speakers, coastal Southerners, et al, living - and more to the point, dying - for these ungrateful wretches of Kashmir. There are plenty of improvised explosive devices used in Kashmir, and it was not at all unreasonable for the soldiers to ensure that the lunchbox wasn`t one.
The soldiers are quite aware of terrorists in many guises: teenagers, burqa-clad ones, etc. And these poor grunts, who live in hostile territory with constant and justified fear of death, have every right to inspect and interrogate anybody. The Kashmiris are in fact the aggressors, the ones aiding and abetting foreign and local terrorists. Our whining hero should be thankful the soldiers didn`t send him on his way assisted by an AK-47. Not to mention the fact that his sob story is very likely exaggerated: everybody in the army, from North or South, knows Hindi.
But our hero is doing what comes naturally. Muslim Kashmiris have made a career out of portraying themselves as victims, thereby shaking down the Indian State. This whole thing is one of the most successful con jobs in history, foisted on an unsuspecting country
Part II
The point we have all missed is the virtual colonization of India by Muslim Kashmiris. I have been reading statistical information about the rate of poverty in different states in India. Gentle reader, take this test: what do you think the rate of poverty in Kashmir is? Below the average, above the average in India? 10 per cent? 20 per cent? 30 per cent?
The astonishing fact is that, despite all the wailing and the beating of breasts, J&K is the least poor state in the country, with a rate of poverty of about 3.4 per cent, compared to 26 per cent for the country as a whole! And no prizes for guessing how it got that way: a hint, it is not because they earn lots of foreign exchange from tourism, dried fruits and nuts, and pashmina shawls.
In effect, Kashmir is extracting royal tribute from the rest of India. Strangely reminiscent of what the British did during colonial times. That is, there is massive funds flow from the Centre to J&K. Look at the magnitude of that largesse: Fiscal Year Amount (Rs, in Crores)
1991 1,244
1992 1,393
1993 1,569
1994 1,820
1995 2,635
1996 2,627
1997 3,208
1998 3,624
1999 3,833
2000 4,604
2001 4,437
2002 4,578
CAGR 1991-2002 14%
Source: India Today, October 14, 2002. `Great Sop Story,` V Shankar Aiyar. For further information, see www.cifjkindia.com, www.kashmir-information.com, www.kashmiri-pandit.org
The Union government`s aid to J&K has therefore far outstripped the growth in the GDP, which has averaged roughly 5% in this time frame. What does this mean? J&K gets a larger and larger share of central expenditure on states. In fact, it gets 10 percent of all central assistance and J&K has received more than any other state since 1995! Far out of proportion to its fair share, which by population should be about 1 percent: that is, J&K gets roughly ten times what it deserves.
Reminds me of the story of the koel and the crow: how the koel lays its eggs in a crow`s nest, and the loud, demanding, hungry koel chick deceives the foster-parents. In the end, the crow`s chicks are starved or elbowed out of the nest, and the interloper flies off, fully grown at someone else`s expense. That is exactly what the good folks in J&K seem to want: fatten at the trough of Indian taxpayer expense, and then secede or join Pakistan.
To put it another way, the per capita central assistance is Rs 8,092 per man, woman and child in J&K. Kindly compare this to the per capita GDP in India, roughly $460 or Rs 22,000. Therefore, each man, woman and child in J&K is being subsidized to the tune of 36 per cent of the per capita GDP! Each J&K person gets eight to ten times more money from the Centre than citizens from other states. This is a true rip-off. And all this money is given by the Center to the state directly, to use as it pleases. Per capita assistance 1992-1993 Per capita assistance 2000-01 CAGR
Other states 576 1,137 8.8%
J & K 3,197 8,092 12.3%
By the way, this largesse does not include major projects that have been funded by the Centre to the tune of Rs 25,000 crores. Consider the following:
Projects Cost Rs, in crores
Railways 4,496
Jammu-Udhampur 446
Udampur-Srinagar-Baramulla 3,564
Jammu Tawi-Jalandar 486
Roads 1,700
NH 1A 1200
Batote-Kishwar-Singhan Pass 200
Leh via Manali Road 1,300
Public Works 318
Reconstruction of gutted bridges 224
Planning Commission Projects 30
Schools 65
Power 16,000
Salai Power Project 921
Dulhasti Hydro Project 4,279
Uri Project 3,300
Tourism 115
Dal Lake cleanup 100
Tourist facility projects 19
Leh Convention Center 2
All this is in addition to the enormous amounts of money to keep Islamist barbarians from overrunning the place. This amounts to thousands of crores of rupees a year, much of which ends up being spent in Jammu and Kashmir. No wonder that the population there, despite years of militancy, and the hollowing out of the tourism industry, is still remarkably better off than most of India`s population.
So the next time some `secular` `progressive` asks you why there is abject poverty in India, the answer is: `Because we spend all our money on keeping Jammu & Kashmir well-fed and well-protected.` Of course, the `secular` `progressive` will then ask the question, `Why don`t we just give up J&K to Pakistan?` The answer is, `If we do, very soon we`ll be repeating the very same conversation about West Bengal, and Uttar Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu, and Kerala: because the Islamist terrorists are not looking for J&K alone, they want nothing less than the complete conquest of India.`
In case you think I am kidding, here`s an excerpt from an interview with Nawabzada Nabiullah Khan of the Jamaat-I-Islami of Pakistan, published in the February 1999 issue of the Jamhooria Islamia, a Baluchi magazine. Khan is quoting the views of Qazi Hussain Ahmed, head of the JI, which has captured a large number of seats in the Pakistani `elections` held recently. The entire interview, as a window into the mindset of an Islamist, is most instructive. And shows a remarkable world view.
What kind of government that JI envisages for Pakistan?
It will be the Sharia government. Sharia will be made our constitution so that the eminent Muslim scholars who had completed the schooling in madrassas will be appointed as the judges in every court. Qazi wanted to make the presidium on the same model as the Khalifa. Presently our ideas is that the entire top leadership of JI as well as all three military generals will be part of the presidium for which the Qazi will be the Kalifa.
We are keenly watching the progress of Taliban and learning from it. We are impressed with the Taliban on the women issue, minorities issue and law and order issue. Mullah Omar is a great friend of Qazi. Omar had visited his house many times. In the tentative talks, we had decided to form union of Pakistan and Afghanistan once the right conditions are set in Pakistan (ie the JI government in Pakistan). Our motto is Constant Jihad.
The idea is to keep Pakistan in a constant state of Jihad all the time. Qazi`s vision is that Pakistan will be centre of the new Islamic empire that stretches from Burma to Afghanistan and from Sri Lanka to Tajikistan including Kashmir. Towards that end, Jamaat will use all tactics from terrorism in the kafir- controlled areas to negotiations in the Muslim-controlled areas. Already the Jamaat leaders of Bangladesh and Jamaat leaders of India had accepted the primacy of Pakistani leadership in this regard.
The problem is that India has internalized a fear of this creeping Islamization, as well as the woolly-headed `secular` `progressive` idea that somehow India owes Kashmiris something. On the contrary, Kashmiris have generally pulled the wool over India`s eyes, to the extent that India is now a Kashmiri colony.
How have the Kashmiris colonized India? Consider the following:
Massive amounts of money are channeled from the Indian government to J&K.
Kashmiris are free to reside anywhere in India, to own property, to carry own business.
Unwanted Kashmiris (namely Hindus) are dumped on India.
Kashmiris often are in senior positions in the Indian government, for instance the Nehru dynasty and even honorary Kashmiris like Sonia Antonia Maino Gandhi get to perpetuate their rule. Not to forget that Mufti Sayeed was once home minister of India.
India sends its soldiers and spends massive amounts to fight the Kashmiris` wars.
Now all this sounds pretty much like what the British had going on in India, doesn`t it? Consider what the British imperialists did:
Massive amounts of money were channeled from Indian to Britain.
Britons were free to reside anywhere in India, to own property, to carry on business.
Unwanted Britons (usually second sons of the inbred minor aristocracy, or uppity grammar-school boys) were dumped on India.
Britons held all the senior positions in Indian government.
India sent its soldiers and spent massive amounts to fight Britain`s wars
Maybe the analogy is a little stretched, but it is startling to see how one-sided and imperial the relationship between Kashmir and the Indian State is.
Let us contrast this with the fact that in Pakistani-occupied Kashmir, the percentage of Kashmiris has dwindled, as it has become a Punjabi Sunni colony, much like China`s policy of demographically swamping Tibet with Han Chinese immigrants. According to Yogendra Bali writing in The Tribune on June 11, 2002, more than two-thirds of the population of PoK is now non-Kashmiri. Of course Hindu Kashmiris have been completely eliminated from PoK. By every measure, be it literacy rates, per capita income or poverty rates, PoK is far worse off than J&K.
Furthermore, the Northern Areas (Gilgit, Baltistan, etc), which collectively refer to themselves as Balawaristan, are areas explicitly ruled as colonies by the Sunni Punjabis. They do not even have the fig leaf of a legislature; I have read a number of statements by Balawaris where they express their total disillusionment with the `Land of the Pure,` which does not give them basic rights, despite court orders. In fact Balawaris have indicated their desire to unite with Ladakh, considering they are just over the Line of Control.
No wonder, then, that the residents even of the raucously anti-India Vale of Kashmir still want to keep themselves attached to the indulgent mammaries of the Indian State. They have no wish, mixing metaphors wildly, to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Consider the poll conducted by MORI, a British pollster.
61 per cent of those polled across J&K felt that they would be better off as Indian citizens, 6 per cent as Pakistani citizens, and 33 per cent did not know.
67 per cent felt that Pakistan`s involvement in the last ten years had been bad for the region, 15 thought it was good, and 18 per cent thought it made no difference.
65 per cent felt that the presence of foreign terrorists in J&K was damaging to the Kashmir cause, the rest thought it was neither damaging nor helpful. (Really! 35 per cent!).
How to bring about peace:
Economic development of the region to provide more job opportunities and reduction of poverty - 93 per cent.
The holding of free and fair elections to elect the people`s representatives - 86 per cent.
Direct consultation between the Indian government and the people of Kashmir - 87 per cent.
An end to militant violence in the region - 86 per cent.
Stopping the infiltration of militants across the Line of Control - 88 per cent.
Human rights violations by militant groups in Jammu and Kashmir:
96 per cent in Jammu believe these are widespread.
2 per cent in Srinagar believe these are widespread (33 per cent believe they are `occasional`).
The role and impact of the Indian security forces:
10 per cent in Jammu believe scaling down their operations would help.
90 per cent in Srinagar and Leh want to scale down operations.
80 per cent believe that allowing the displaced Kashmiri Pandits to return in safety would help the cause of peace
A pretty clear pattern emerges: the Muslims in the Vale of Kashmir want India to continue to give them money, but want the `militants` (aka terrorists) to be given a free hand. Why not, indeed: it is a terrific deal for them; they have used the Pakistan-armed terrorists to cleanse the Hindus. Regarding their pious desire for the return of the Pandits, I wonder what percentage of those wanting them to return are willing to give back the real estate and the jobs the Pandits left behind when fleeing.
And of course, like Oliver Twist, the Kashmiris want more. Money, investment, all that.
I think there has to be an end to this free ride. With the new PDP-Congress coalition government in power in J&K, there is a golden opportunity to rethink this unequal situation. For, the election has been patently free and fair, in the face of tremendous odds. Here are a few points as food for thought:
1.The Indian State has been practising a policy of unthinking giveaways to Jammu and Kashmir, danam in the Chanakyan chatur-upayas. It may well be time to move on dandam, a kick in the pants, so they realize that with rights, they have some responsibilities too.
2.The ongoing domination of Ladakh and Jammu by the Vale of Kashmir needs to be ameliorated. It is well known that Ladakh and Jammu have no use for the secessionist tendencies of the Kashmiris; however, the Kashmiris of Srinagar have been running the whole state as their personal fief. The state needs to be reorganized in some way (not necessarily trifurcation) so that the legitimate needs of those in Ladakh and Jammu get a hearing.
3.The minority Hindus of Jammu and Buddhists of Ladakh need to take a leaf out of the books of the Muslims and Christians of Kerala. In Kerala, the religious minorities have become kingmakers by exploiting the fact that, in fractured polities, smaller parties hold the balance when it comes to forming governments: thus everyone wants them and offers them many incentives.
4>Instead of mollycoddling those who claim they want to secede from the Indian Union, the central government should ask them to choose: if they want the benefit of integration with India, they need to go for it full force. The Centre should start negotiating the repeal of Article 370, rather than talking about pre-1953 status or other such nonsense.
5.Kashmiris now enjoy full rights of residency anywhere in India: since there is no reciprocity, there need to be some adjustments. One possibility is to progressively revoke Kashmiris` right to reside elsewhere or buy property. In addition, Kashmiris residing anywhere in India should be under very strong scrutiny to ensure that they are not, and are not harboring, terrorists.
6.Move towards reducing the quantum of central investment in Kashmir. Today, the state generates only 40 per cent of its budget, and the rest is through central grants.
7.If the Kashmiris want a reduction in Indian security forces in their territory, let us grant them their wish. The Centre should start making plans to do the following: mine the border heavily, but gradually withdraw soldiers from the Vale of Kashmir. Of course, this will encourage the Al Qaeda and assorted Pakistani, Arab and Afghan mercenaries to enter the Vale of Kashmir and rape, kidnap, loot etc. Once they get a taste of this medicine from these beloved `boys in the mountains` I bet the Kashmiris will come crawling back, asking for more soldiers. In fact, the mere threat of withdrawing troops will make them think twice.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#107 Posted by sifzal on June 26, 2005 5:27:58 am
Dost-mitter
I respect your feelings as they are sincere in their own respect, but let me say the feelings are highly skewed and ignoring the very basic fact - these business relations between Kashmir and India, somewhat forced as you mentioned yourself, are all result of an illegal occupation of a land that does not belong to India. Your previous leaders accepted it and the world knows about it, and even you yourself, am I not true? I wrote before and say here again, if I forcefully take over some one`s...say for example your house and try to project it as my own throwing parties or convert it even in a social activity centre for the benefit of the society poor, and provide a mechanism through which the left over of your family members may even earn their bread...the basic truth will remain the same - I am illegal occupant and justice demands that I should hand it over to the real owners and let them decide how and what to do regarding managing their homeland affairs. Here I recall one of my colleague (Professor by profession) in an international workshop in Melbourne, admitted in a private group conversation...``we know the truth, but cannot support Pakistan in open, you know, for we have done the same...``
...the Aboriginals, Palestinians, Kashmiries, and many others are all struggling...people are not at peace, weak are praying, strong ones struggling, some fighting but not coming to the terms of seemingly mighty ones...you know why, for if the illegal occupants are mighty in force, the freedom fighters are mighty in their self-esteem and will of freedom. Such struggles will go on till the basic justice is done. So please, if you ever see a picture projecting a smiling face of a child in media with a caption that some millitants are trying to take away the smile, think twice before coming to a sympthetic conclusion...for those millitants may be the freedom fighters denied of their rights for living, and the picture a mere distraction to win your sypathies in support of the evil done against the freedom fighters. Have the courage - support the right against the wrong!
I respect your feelings as they are sincere in their own respect, but let me say the feelings are highly skewed and ignoring the very basic fact - these business relations between Kashmir and India, somewhat forced as you mentioned yourself, are all result of an illegal occupation of a land that does not belong to India. Your previous leaders accepted it and the world knows about it, and even you yourself, am I not true? I wrote before and say here again, if I forcefully take over some one`s...say for example your house and try to project it as my own throwing parties or convert it even in a social activity centre for the benefit of the society poor, and provide a mechanism through which the left over of your family members may even earn their bread...the basic truth will remain the same - I am illegal occupant and justice demands that I should hand it over to the real owners and let them decide how and what to do regarding managing their homeland affairs. Here I recall one of my colleague (Professor by profession) in an international workshop in Melbourne, admitted in a private group conversation...``we know the truth, but cannot support Pakistan in open, you know, for we have done the same...``
...the Aboriginals, Palestinians, Kashmiries, and many others are all struggling...people are not at peace, weak are praying, strong ones struggling, some fighting but not coming to the terms of seemingly mighty ones...you know why, for if the illegal occupants are mighty in force, the freedom fighters are mighty in their self-esteem and will of freedom. Such struggles will go on till the basic justice is done. So please, if you ever see a picture projecting a smiling face of a child in media with a caption that some millitants are trying to take away the smile, think twice before coming to a sympthetic conclusion...for those millitants may be the freedom fighters denied of their rights for living, and the picture a mere distraction to win your sypathies in support of the evil done against the freedom fighters. Have the courage - support the right against the wrong!
#106 Posted by HaroonEllahi on October 16, 2004 7:16:48 am
Thats odd. Occupied Kashmir has only one `road` linking Kashmir with India. However, not is it only naturally part of Pakistan but also because of the two massive interstate roads which connect Kashmir to Pakistan.
Dost-mittar, if you were to compare the illegal Indian occupation of Kashmir with the Siachen issue, Siach is like a peanut. The implications of India making diverting our water will be too great for us to stand. We can not allow India to have a `geo-strategically` weapon which can be as deadly as a nuclear bomb in the long run. We can not and will not allow India to have the ability to turn Punjab into `Rajasthan`. Sorry, it just won`t happen.
As for free-trade, I`d support fair trade over free trade. ASEAN is already a big trading bloc and South Asia should follow suit. SAARC and ASEAN I believe are trying to make one big trading bloc. This will be very good because due to the massive increase of of consumers our industries will be able to produce more hence cut down on cost per unit. Any ways, it would even help the people as so much competition would lead to more consumer-friendly prices. The inefficent industries on the Indian and Pakistani side would however suffer. Now I`m all for this but I`ve heard that India gives subsidies to many of it`s industries and incentives. and that China gives `hidden` subsidies in the form of cheaper raw materials etc.
hmmm, shrewd businessmen the indians are :P hehe
Dost-mittar, if you were to compare the illegal Indian occupation of Kashmir with the Siachen issue, Siach is like a peanut. The implications of India making diverting our water will be too great for us to stand. We can not allow India to have a `geo-strategically` weapon which can be as deadly as a nuclear bomb in the long run. We can not and will not allow India to have the ability to turn Punjab into `Rajasthan`. Sorry, it just won`t happen.
As for free-trade, I`d support fair trade over free trade. ASEAN is already a big trading bloc and South Asia should follow suit. SAARC and ASEAN I believe are trying to make one big trading bloc. This will be very good because due to the massive increase of of consumers our industries will be able to produce more hence cut down on cost per unit. Any ways, it would even help the people as so much competition would lead to more consumer-friendly prices. The inefficent industries on the Indian and Pakistani side would however suffer. Now I`m all for this but I`ve heard that India gives subsidies to many of it`s industries and incentives. and that China gives `hidden` subsidies in the form of cheaper raw materials etc.
hmmm, shrewd businessmen the indians are :P hehe
#105 Posted by dost_mittar on October 14, 2003 10:43:47 am
ahmedmadani urf the wizard-of-oz#88
I will look forward to your detailed comment on the article.
If you were in India, you would probably make a muslim poster-boy for the hindutva parties. They are doing everything you advise that the hindu ``umma`` should do.
But there is a caveat! There concept of nationalism is very exclusive. In a country where nearly 200 million people are non-hindus, they will have to broaden their horizons and make their concept of nation more inclusive. And I am not sure if all hindus will accept their brand of hindutva.
I will look forward to your detailed comment on the article.
If you were in India, you would probably make a muslim poster-boy for the hindutva parties. They are doing everything you advise that the hindu ``umma`` should do.
But there is a caveat! There concept of nationalism is very exclusive. In a country where nearly 200 million people are non-hindus, they will have to broaden their horizons and make their concept of nation more inclusive. And I am not sure if all hindus will accept their brand of hindutva.
#104 Posted by dost_mittar on October 14, 2003 8:42:44 am
Romair:
[Those of us who work and eat with Indias daily, will tell you, that Indians just don`t know anything about Pakistan.]
It may interest you to know that a Pakistani chowki you admire has named the best informed chowkies about Pakistan and India and both of them are Indians.
BTW the Indian perceptions of Pakistan are not very different from those of NY Times, Washington Post and the US think tanks. Do you think that these two read only the Indian government`s propaganda?
[Those of us who work and eat with Indias daily, will tell you, that Indians just don`t know anything about Pakistan.]
It may interest you to know that a Pakistani chowki you admire has named the best informed chowkies about Pakistan and India and both of them are Indians.
BTW the Indian perceptions of Pakistan are not very different from those of NY Times, Washington Post and the US think tanks. Do you think that these two read only the Indian government`s propaganda?
#103 Posted by dost_mittar on October 14, 2003 8:36:26 am
nazarhayatkhan:
It is always good to hear from your posts. I especially liked your post#101.
I am glad that you still make a point to go and support your old institution in Sargodha. My wife tells me that during the 1965 war, her Masi would always pray that the Indian Air Force pilots spare her favourite Sargodha. This, I guess, is the kind of emotional baggage you were referring to in the India-Pak relation, though most of the baggage is of a negative variety.
BTW, in my opinion based on a very small sample, Indian army people are not as jingoistic as their Pakistani counterparts, with the possible exception of the sikh officers. They generally tend to view their army jobs as a career and not some sort of mission, as seems to be the case with the Pakistani army. Indians also do not view army as a very highly prized career, as is evident from the army having a hard time filling the thousands of vacant positon in the officers` cadre.
It is always good to hear from your posts. I especially liked your post#101.
I am glad that you still make a point to go and support your old institution in Sargodha. My wife tells me that during the 1965 war, her Masi would always pray that the Indian Air Force pilots spare her favourite Sargodha. This, I guess, is the kind of emotional baggage you were referring to in the India-Pak relation, though most of the baggage is of a negative variety.
BTW, in my opinion based on a very small sample, Indian army people are not as jingoistic as their Pakistani counterparts, with the possible exception of the sikh officers. They generally tend to view their army jobs as a career and not some sort of mission, as seems to be the case with the Pakistani army. Indians also do not view army as a very highly prized career, as is evident from the army having a hard time filling the thousands of vacant positon in the officers` cadre.
#102 Posted by dost_mittar on October 14, 2003 8:24:33 am
mumbaikar:
One should learn the art of pragmatic policy and politics from the Chinese. They are not giving up an inch of their all-weather friendship with Pakistan because they realise that Pakistani establishment will never give up its hatred of India and can be a trusted ally to keep India`s regional power ambitions in check.
But this is not stopping them from realising the importance of improving bilateral relations with India. While it realises that the US and Indian interests converge in the Indian ocean area and in providing a counter to China in the region, it is also aware of, and takes advantage of, the Indian dislike of unipolar world and its desire to be one of the multipoles.
Their pragmatic approach is especially on view in the economic area. I was surprised to see in India singing-shaking-grooving dolls of Daler Menhndi and Adnan Sami singing their latest songs and made in China. One of the hot items in cell phone accessories in India is a panel with a tricolour, catering to the new-found ostentatious patriotism of Indians. Guess where those panels are made? That`s right, made in China. And now there is even talk of starting a free-trade betweeen the two countries.
India, and especially Pakistan, should learn some lessons from the Chinese to not let the territorial issues between them to recognize the common risks and opportunities faced by them. So far, the only one who has recognised this reality is Mullah Fazloo.
One should learn the art of pragmatic policy and politics from the Chinese. They are not giving up an inch of their all-weather friendship with Pakistan because they realise that Pakistani establishment will never give up its hatred of India and can be a trusted ally to keep India`s regional power ambitions in check.
But this is not stopping them from realising the importance of improving bilateral relations with India. While it realises that the US and Indian interests converge in the Indian ocean area and in providing a counter to China in the region, it is also aware of, and takes advantage of, the Indian dislike of unipolar world and its desire to be one of the multipoles.
Their pragmatic approach is especially on view in the economic area. I was surprised to see in India singing-shaking-grooving dolls of Daler Menhndi and Adnan Sami singing their latest songs and made in China. One of the hot items in cell phone accessories in India is a panel with a tricolour, catering to the new-found ostentatious patriotism of Indians. Guess where those panels are made? That`s right, made in China. And now there is even talk of starting a free-trade betweeen the two countries.
India, and especially Pakistan, should learn some lessons from the Chinese to not let the territorial issues between them to recognize the common risks and opportunities faced by them. So far, the only one who has recognised this reality is Mullah Fazloo.
#101 Posted by nazarhayatkhan on October 13, 2003 11:48:09 pm
Alephnull # 98
India-Pakistan conflict is a little more than Japs-Yanks conflict in second world war. Here a bit of emotion is also involved. In some odd way, the likes of Koreas & Germanys. Emotion means illogical and childish behaviour. It is amply reflected by both countries - Pakistan a little more.
Pakistan demarcated its borders with China without blinking an eye. I do not know the details. But giving away some wilderness in the mountains for a friendly China was a good
choice.
Pakistan takes all brow-beating from US or EU or UK without blinking an eye. But a statement from Advani, even if for local consumption, makes Musharraf suddenly think of ``honour & dignity``. It has more to do with psychological hangups and mental fixations rather than the national interests.
The tragedy is that a statement from Musharraf makes it look like a reflection of Pakistanis & a statement from Advani looks like a reflection of opinion of all Indians.
The politicians handle the emotional issues far better than the Generals. This temperature , I guess, will automatically go down when civilians take over Pakistan - Pakistani politicians are now much wiser - and they sense a greater threat from Pak army than the Indian Army.
I agree with you that Pakistan should treat India just like any other big country - especially after the psychological bomb-parity has been created. It is foolish to compete with India - collaboration is the only logical and sensible course. Trying to get the US involved is another waste of time - and counter productive.
On the magnanimous issue, the Indian leadership could be more magnanimous in its statements - and play with the psychology of the military mind. Magnanimity does not always mean territorial or other concessions. Nothing is lost by a big powerful country by making soft friendly statements or gestures. France is a good example.
Finally, the India-Pakistan conflict would not make much difference to India in the long run - but it could seriously affect Pakistan`s obligations to its poor massess. As such, I am always an advcate of friendly relations with India, as an essential criteria, in the simple national interests.
Stuka
Air Force & Navy are quite in the box all the way. The Army, after 2-stars, is quite out of the box - and a lot damage has been done by their experimentation i.e. Bangla Desh, Islamization, Talibans, Stretegic depth, Kargil, continued hostility towards India.
#100 Posted by arjun_m on October 13, 2003 7:15:39 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#99 Posted by AlephNull on October 13, 2003 7:15:38 pm
Romair #92
{{There is a unique contradiction I see amongst Indians in the USA. At a personal level, they are the most non-violent people I have ever met. Extremely easy to get along with. Yet at a organizational level, they can be they can and are very anti-Pakistan. … This doesn`t add up. Personally mild-mannered inidividuals should not be so antagonistic towards Pakistan, at a community level.}}
There is no contradiction. Indians at large typically do not display either the permanent passivity that you have been indoctrinated to expect they would, nor the immediate in-your-face combativeness common among Punjabis. You seem to not have any insight into the national character of non-Punjabi Indians. They tend to outwardly shrug off a certain amount of rudeness, flagrant dishonesty, etc. while making mental notes for future reference. Once a threshold of offence is crossed you have made a relentless and implacable foe. The time lag between the stimulus and the delayed response can mislead you into believing that outwardly soft-spoken and mild-mannered Indians are eternally docile when they are anything but that.
{{The only reason I can come up with is that they genuinely believe they are doing the right thing. And they believe this, because they believe everything their govt. throws at them, about Kashmir, Pakistan etc. And they believe their govt., because they themselves know nothing about Pakistan and Pakistanis, and thus have nothing to counter their govts.` point of view.}}
Nice try, but the reality is rather different. Any Indian in the US who cares enough, can and usually does use TV and the Web to access news sources on Pakistan other than Indian ones. For instance, he can watch Pee TV. He can read Pakistani newspapers online, and imbibe the views of such luminaries of the Pakistani elite as Najam Sethi, Ejaz Haider, Ayaz Amir, Shrilleen Mazari, Asghar Butt, Ikram Sehgal, Lt. Gen (R) Hamid Gul, Brig (R) Usman Khalid, Abidollah Jan, etc. He can even sample Pakistan Defense Journal or South Asia Tribune. Or he can go on Chowk and sniff the vaporous outpourings of lesser lights like Romair, Hobbyty, Ahmedzai, HisExcellency, Tahmed, Urstruly, etc.
The overall picture that willy-nilly emerges is of a delusional and deeply conflicted Pakistani elite class tripping over decades of their own lies, deceit, disinformation and indoctrination, but sharing a common resentment and angst towards India and Indian predominance in the subcontinent.
Some among these worthies might be honestly misled and too lazy to correct their preconceptions; others, having completely internalized the myth-making process of the Pakistani state, seem to expect that the perceptions of Indians about Pakistani reality can be influenced or controlled by Pakistani ideologues as easily as those of Pakistanis are, and are chagrined when this is not the case.
In addition to Pakistani sources, there are also easily accessible American and European sources of information on Pakistan, such as several well-written books and journal articles. All of them present Pakistan in a rather different light than the likes of Romair would have you believe. So the claim that Indians abroad are massively brainwashed by “their own government’s propaganda” does not hold water.
{{They are going out of their way to stop the recent $3 billion dollars that Pakistan will get from the USA. Half or more of which is for the welfare of the poor in Pakistan.}}
Money sent to Pakistan ostensibly for ‘welfare of the poor’ will most likely be diverted – like billions in past loans from international institutions - into the pockets and Swiss bank accounts of the rich. This is especially likely to happen because the Pakistani population at large cannot control the way the national budget is spent through genuinely fair democratic elections. So stopping US taxpayer money from going to Pakistan is not hurting the poor, simply inconveniencing the Pakistani armed forces and elite class, who in any case do not warrant Indian sympathy.
{{There is a unique contradiction I see amongst Indians in the USA. At a personal level, they are the most non-violent people I have ever met. Extremely easy to get along with. Yet at a organizational level, they can be they can and are very anti-Pakistan. … This doesn`t add up. Personally mild-mannered inidividuals should not be so antagonistic towards Pakistan, at a community level.}}
There is no contradiction. Indians at large typically do not display either the permanent passivity that you have been indoctrinated to expect they would, nor the immediate in-your-face combativeness common among Punjabis. You seem to not have any insight into the national character of non-Punjabi Indians. They tend to outwardly shrug off a certain amount of rudeness, flagrant dishonesty, etc. while making mental notes for future reference. Once a threshold of offence is crossed you have made a relentless and implacable foe. The time lag between the stimulus and the delayed response can mislead you into believing that outwardly soft-spoken and mild-mannered Indians are eternally docile when they are anything but that.
{{The only reason I can come up with is that they genuinely believe they are doing the right thing. And they believe this, because they believe everything their govt. throws at them, about Kashmir, Pakistan etc. And they believe their govt., because they themselves know nothing about Pakistan and Pakistanis, and thus have nothing to counter their govts.` point of view.}}
Nice try, but the reality is rather different. Any Indian in the US who cares enough, can and usually does use TV and the Web to access news sources on Pakistan other than Indian ones. For instance, he can watch Pee TV. He can read Pakistani newspapers online, and imbibe the views of such luminaries of the Pakistani elite as Najam Sethi, Ejaz Haider, Ayaz Amir, Shrilleen Mazari, Asghar Butt, Ikram Sehgal, Lt. Gen (R) Hamid Gul, Brig (R) Usman Khalid, Abidollah Jan, etc. He can even sample Pakistan Defense Journal or South Asia Tribune. Or he can go on Chowk and sniff the vaporous outpourings of lesser lights like Romair, Hobbyty, Ahmedzai, HisExcellency, Tahmed, Urstruly, etc.
The overall picture that willy-nilly emerges is of a delusional and deeply conflicted Pakistani elite class tripping over decades of their own lies, deceit, disinformation and indoctrination, but sharing a common resentment and angst towards India and Indian predominance in the subcontinent.
Some among these worthies might be honestly misled and too lazy to correct their preconceptions; others, having completely internalized the myth-making process of the Pakistani state, seem to expect that the perceptions of Indians about Pakistani reality can be influenced or controlled by Pakistani ideologues as easily as those of Pakistanis are, and are chagrined when this is not the case.
In addition to Pakistani sources, there are also easily accessible American and European sources of information on Pakistan, such as several well-written books and journal articles. All of them present Pakistan in a rather different light than the likes of Romair would have you believe. So the claim that Indians abroad are massively brainwashed by “their own government’s propaganda” does not hold water.
{{They are going out of their way to stop the recent $3 billion dollars that Pakistan will get from the USA. Half or more of which is for the welfare of the poor in Pakistan.}}
Money sent to Pakistan ostensibly for ‘welfare of the poor’ will most likely be diverted – like billions in past loans from international institutions - into the pockets and Swiss bank accounts of the rich. This is especially likely to happen because the Pakistani population at large cannot control the way the national budget is spent through genuinely fair democratic elections. So stopping US taxpayer money from going to Pakistan is not hurting the poor, simply inconveniencing the Pakistani armed forces and elite class, who in any case do not warrant Indian sympathy.
#98 Posted by AlephNull on October 13, 2003 6:27:31 pm
nazarhayatkhan #85
{{In one small Pakistani gathering (5 people), issue of Kshmir came up. Even the educated Pakistanis do not logically think about the issue. Indian atrocities & bloodshed is the constant theme - also the Indian arrogance. And its inability to act magnanomously.}}
That is a revealing insight into one of the fundamental contradictions in the Pakistani elite’s worldview. On the one hand they want India to act ‘magnanimously’ towards Pakistan, i.e. to give Pakistan more weight than its importance warrants, show it more deference than its power demands, treat it with more generosity than it deserves given its national ideology, past history, present behaviour and likely future trajectory; cut one-sided deals to disproportionately benefit Pakistan, etc.
On the other hand, the very same Pakistani elites have been the most consistent proponents of the fatuous doctrine of “India-Pakistan equal-equal”. They have always measured themselves against India, have always seen themselves as peers and strategic competitors of India, have deeply resented Indian preponderance – which they are pleased to call ‘hegemony’, etc. Their boasting ranges from asserting alleged civilizational superiority and greater martial prowess over ‘racially inferior’ Indians, to claiming that they are ‘better-looking’ as a group, whatever that means. Their foreign policy has for fifty years taking the form of enlisting the aid of extra-regional powers to balance against India, rather than trying to bandwagon with India. ‘Parity’ with India and ‘strategic balance’ have been the watchwords of their preferred relationship with India. Behind the resentment at Indian ‘arrogance’ lies a deep angst at the reality of India’s ever-increasing preponderance.
There is a basic contradiction between the hopes for ‘magnanimity’ and ‘generosity’ and the desire to go toe-to-toe with India. Magnanimity is shown to much smaller and weaker parties who understand and publicly acknowledge their permanently inferior, dependent, subordinate or vassal status. It is never shown to implacable enemies and real or wannabe strategic competitors.
At a personal level, magnanimity is a component of relationships with a feudal character, such as between feudal lord and serf, or employer and employee. At a national level it may be warranted towards enemy nations that have been utterly crushed and are now sought to be converted into junior partners in an alliance. For instance, the US probably treated Japan – a one-time strategic competitor – magnanimously, after they had firebombed and leveled their major cities, atom bombed two cities, destroyed their military, subjected them to an armed occupation, etc. No mercy was shown until Japan had been brought to her knees. The magnanimity of the MacArthur dispensation, or the Marshall Plan, was clearly in the US self-interest after Japan and Germany had been comprehensively defeated, not before.
It is utterly folly to show any generosity to those with an ingrained hostility to everything you and your nation stand for. The most egregious example in Indian history of fatally misplaced generosity was that of Prithviraj Chauhan towards Mohammad Ghori. Poor Prithviraj did not realize that his Rajput chivalry had no place in a struggle with the barbarian from the north. Indians should never again make a similar mistake with Ghori’s civilizational successors.
{{In one small Pakistani gathering (5 people), issue of Kshmir came up. Even the educated Pakistanis do not logically think about the issue. Indian atrocities & bloodshed is the constant theme - also the Indian arrogance. And its inability to act magnanomously.}}
That is a revealing insight into one of the fundamental contradictions in the Pakistani elite’s worldview. On the one hand they want India to act ‘magnanimously’ towards Pakistan, i.e. to give Pakistan more weight than its importance warrants, show it more deference than its power demands, treat it with more generosity than it deserves given its national ideology, past history, present behaviour and likely future trajectory; cut one-sided deals to disproportionately benefit Pakistan, etc.
On the other hand, the very same Pakistani elites have been the most consistent proponents of the fatuous doctrine of “India-Pakistan equal-equal”. They have always measured themselves against India, have always seen themselves as peers and strategic competitors of India, have deeply resented Indian preponderance – which they are pleased to call ‘hegemony’, etc. Their boasting ranges from asserting alleged civilizational superiority and greater martial prowess over ‘racially inferior’ Indians, to claiming that they are ‘better-looking’ as a group, whatever that means. Their foreign policy has for fifty years taking the form of enlisting the aid of extra-regional powers to balance against India, rather than trying to bandwagon with India. ‘Parity’ with India and ‘strategic balance’ have been the watchwords of their preferred relationship with India. Behind the resentment at Indian ‘arrogance’ lies a deep angst at the reality of India’s ever-increasing preponderance.
There is a basic contradiction between the hopes for ‘magnanimity’ and ‘generosity’ and the desire to go toe-to-toe with India. Magnanimity is shown to much smaller and weaker parties who understand and publicly acknowledge their permanently inferior, dependent, subordinate or vassal status. It is never shown to implacable enemies and real or wannabe strategic competitors.
At a personal level, magnanimity is a component of relationships with a feudal character, such as between feudal lord and serf, or employer and employee. At a national level it may be warranted towards enemy nations that have been utterly crushed and are now sought to be converted into junior partners in an alliance. For instance, the US probably treated Japan – a one-time strategic competitor – magnanimously, after they had firebombed and leveled their major cities, atom bombed two cities, destroyed their military, subjected them to an armed occupation, etc. No mercy was shown until Japan had been brought to her knees. The magnanimity of the MacArthur dispensation, or the Marshall Plan, was clearly in the US self-interest after Japan and Germany had been comprehensively defeated, not before.
It is utterly folly to show any generosity to those with an ingrained hostility to everything you and your nation stand for. The most egregious example in Indian history of fatally misplaced generosity was that of Prithviraj Chauhan towards Mohammad Ghori. Poor Prithviraj did not realize that his Rajput chivalry had no place in a struggle with the barbarian from the north. Indians should never again make a similar mistake with Ghori’s civilizational successors.
#97 Posted by RationalFaith on October 13, 2003 3:28:09 pm
Romair #92
Indian groups oppose Pakistan because Pakistani rulers have made opposition to India the country`s only reason for survival.
Even some supposedly intelligent Pakistani chowkies take pride in Pakistan`s ability to `squeez India`s ba%ls` since 1947. That is the noble goal the supporters of Pakistani military have set for themselves. Funnily, they turn around and teach Pakistanis that India has been troubling Pakistan. They have even been suggesting that it was always India who initiated hostilities between the two countries in all our wars :)
Indians don`t know Pakistan because Pakistan has chosen to be a closed society. If Pakistan is different from what Indians think of it, Indians won`t know it. Just like people of all other countries, excluding Saudi Arabs, Indians think Pakistan is turning into a meal for the Islamist Frankenstein that it`s military has nurtured to grab Kashmir. They think so because the only achievement from Pakistan they hear of is how a masive annual meeting of this or that Islamic group was organized where speakers swore to bring back Islamic rule and punish all kafirs, or how Pakistani military once again fired North Korean missiles in order to `test` them. Elite Pakistanis are so few in number, and most are so busy either supporting jihadis or so scared of Islamists that they can do little but cower in terrorist presence that they are hardly visible to outsiders.
Of course, nobody expects Kashmiri Pakistanis to want average real Pakistanis to see facts for themselves.
For your own understanding of India, you should visit Bangalore. You can stay at our house. You will find that the Indian elite has become very confident, and Indian middle class is expanding rapidly. There is a can do attitude everywhere. There is a shared belief that the difficult path of secularism and long investment in education and science is paying off. That the path of secularism and science is a far better than that chosen by many other countries, except China. We are jealous of China. I want India to be more like China. China has not tolerated in Tibbet what we tolerate in Kashmir.
There is a broad consensus in India regarding India`s path and India`s destiny, despite its religious hiccups. When people share a vision there is consensus. You, Ahmadzai, Pakistani military, and MMA display a broad consensus when it comes to India, because you share many same ideas. This military-mullah philosophy may not appeal to all Pakistanis. That`s why there is greater divergence in Pakistani views. Some of them even want Musharraf to make a U turn - he himself has been telling the world that he has done so. Has he? I think the situation is getting so danerous with Jehadis running all over the place, that he had better do so now. Yet, a military mind bent on ruling over its people by hook or crook is a strange and unpredictable thing.
When Pakistan finds a way that appeals to a broad cross section of its population, it too will display greater consensus. What Indians think of it is a side issue.
Indian groups oppose Pakistan because Pakistani rulers have made opposition to India the country`s only reason for survival.
Even some supposedly intelligent Pakistani chowkies take pride in Pakistan`s ability to `squeez India`s ba%ls` since 1947. That is the noble goal the supporters of Pakistani military have set for themselves. Funnily, they turn around and teach Pakistanis that India has been troubling Pakistan. They have even been suggesting that it was always India who initiated hostilities between the two countries in all our wars :)
Indians don`t know Pakistan because Pakistan has chosen to be a closed society. If Pakistan is different from what Indians think of it, Indians won`t know it. Just like people of all other countries, excluding Saudi Arabs, Indians think Pakistan is turning into a meal for the Islamist Frankenstein that it`s military has nurtured to grab Kashmir. They think so because the only achievement from Pakistan they hear of is how a masive annual meeting of this or that Islamic group was organized where speakers swore to bring back Islamic rule and punish all kafirs, or how Pakistani military once again fired North Korean missiles in order to `test` them. Elite Pakistanis are so few in number, and most are so busy either supporting jihadis or so scared of Islamists that they can do little but cower in terrorist presence that they are hardly visible to outsiders.
Of course, nobody expects Kashmiri Pakistanis to want average real Pakistanis to see facts for themselves.
For your own understanding of India, you should visit Bangalore. You can stay at our house. You will find that the Indian elite has become very confident, and Indian middle class is expanding rapidly. There is a can do attitude everywhere. There is a shared belief that the difficult path of secularism and long investment in education and science is paying off. That the path of secularism and science is a far better than that chosen by many other countries, except China. We are jealous of China. I want India to be more like China. China has not tolerated in Tibbet what we tolerate in Kashmir.
There is a broad consensus in India regarding India`s path and India`s destiny, despite its religious hiccups. When people share a vision there is consensus. You, Ahmadzai, Pakistani military, and MMA display a broad consensus when it comes to India, because you share many same ideas. This military-mullah philosophy may not appeal to all Pakistanis. That`s why there is greater divergence in Pakistani views. Some of them even want Musharraf to make a U turn - he himself has been telling the world that he has done so. Has he? I think the situation is getting so danerous with Jehadis running all over the place, that he had better do so now. Yet, a military mind bent on ruling over its people by hook or crook is a strange and unpredictable thing.
When Pakistan finds a way that appeals to a broad cross section of its population, it too will display greater consensus. What Indians think of it is a side issue.
#96 Posted by arjun_m on October 13, 2003 1:00:31 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#95 Posted by stuka on October 13, 2003 11:21:54 am
NHK:
As a follow up question, how would you rate the intellectual level of the general staff since they call the shots? My impression of Indian general staff is that they indulge in negligible original thinking outside the box.
As a follow up question, how would you rate the intellectual level of the general staff since they call the shots? My impression of Indian general staff is that they indulge in negligible original thinking outside the box.
#94 Posted by arjun_m on October 13, 2003 11:04:50 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#93 Posted by arjun_m on October 13, 2003 11:04:50 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- pinku: Re #19 Posted by... Faith and Religion
- MeiraJ08: Not borrowed, not stolen One... In Memory of Ahmed
- tahmed32: #161 it is deplorable... How real is your
- allah001: dost_mittar: Very pertinent points in... Faith and Religion
- Regards: Murad, I agree with most... Faith and Religion
- VRV: SRK, Then it's deplorable (I... How real is your
- tahmed32: majumdar sahib #157 On the... How real is your
- SRK: VRV, In one instance,... How real is your
